80sBEAR said:

---

bearlyafarmer said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If certain regents and Baylor administrators are behind this ban, and I also suspect they are, it's because they feel disrespected. The truth is that they are, because thousands of Baylor alums and other stakeholders continue to see ourselves disrespected, dismissed and ignored by Baylor leadership. Respect is not a result of an office or position. Respect happens on the basis of the observed outworking of integrity and other high character traits. When everyone in the Baylor family (even the deniers) know that power and money (not character) are the basis for regency, a high degree of respect simply cannot be expected.

---

Very well said, Sir. It would have been refreshing had at least ONE of them defended Baylor or had the decency to resign. Just one.

---

Sorry for the weird format but this was the only link I could find. However, it does appear to be an infamous regent defending BU. It doesn't really fit with the established narrative on this board though so probably best not to click the link.

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-dallas-morning-news/20170310/281861528304627

80sBEAR said:

---

bearlyafarmer said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If certain regents and Baylor administrators are behind this ban, and I also suspect they are, it's because they feel disrespected. The truth is that they are, because thousands of Baylor alums and other stakeholders continue to see ourselves disrespected, dismissed and ignored by Baylor leadership. Respect is not a result of an office or position. Respect happens on the basis of the observed outworking of integrity and other high character traits. When everyone in the Baylor family (even the deniers) know that power and money (not character) are the basis for regency, a high degree of respect simply cannot be expected.

---

Very well said, Sir. It would have been refreshing had at least ONE of them defended Baylor or had the decency to resign. Just one.

---

Lulz, you only care that they fired a football coach that you wanted to keep at all costs.

80sBEAR said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If true, this is complete and utter crap.

---

'Tis true. This underscores how much we miss the BOR-free zone that was baylorfans.com.

Now we know how folks feel living under the Bolsheviks. Whatever happened to diversity? Murff must have some dirty pictures or some delinquent notes on somebody.

---

Such drama queens.

How dare the mods try to make a football forum about football and not butthurt t-shirt trolls ranting about the same bygone crap for two years.

---

So are you an investor or a BOR member or both?

---

It's hilarious you think the BOR gives two shakes what a ranting anonymous poster says to dozens on a free message board.

Makes you really feel powerful to think you have an influence doesn't it.

---

Well it apparently bothers someone named here to the point that he pressures the moderators to ban such an insignificant poster. This person evidently thinks someone is paying attention to this little old board

---

I must admit that I have not followed what they banned poster has posted very closely. What did he say that would rile people up?

---

He posted actual pictures of the Regents which I am sure enraged them to no end. Those people don't want the Baylor Alumni to know who they are or what they look like. They want to remain in the shadows and don't want to be held accountable for anything. That is the truth. Plain and simple. Perhaps one of the moderators will want to put in their two cents, for what it is worth. This is the free board, and very simply, paid opinions trump free ones. That is the way the world works.

---

I'm sure it has nothing to do with him posting the same couple of pictures, that added nothing, in every thread that devolves into this same old crap.

80sBEAR said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If true, this is complete and utter crap.

---

'Tis true. This underscores how much we miss the BOR-free zone that was baylorfans.com.

Now we know how folks feel living under the Bolsheviks. Whatever happened to diversity? Murff must have some dirty pictures or some delinquent notes on somebody.

---

Such drama queens.

How dare the mods try to make a football forum about football and not butthurt t-shirt trolls ranting about the same bygone crap for two years.

---

So are you an investor or a BOR member or both?

---

It's hilarious you think the BOR gives two shakes what a ranting anonymous poster says to dozens on a free message board.

Makes you really feel powerful to think you have an influence doesn't it.

---

Well it apparently bothers someone named here to the point that he pressures the moderators to ban such an insignificant poster. This person evidently thinks someone is paying attention to this little old board

---

I must admit that I have not followed what they banned poster has posted very closely. What did he say that would rile people up?

---

He posted actual pictures of the Regents which I am sure enraged them to no end. Those people don't want the Baylor Alumni to know who they are or what they look like. They want to remain in the shadows and don't want to be held accountable for anything. That is the truth. Plain and simple. Perhaps one of the moderators will want to put in their two cents, for what it is worth. This is the free board, and very simply, paid opinions trump free ones. That is the way the world works.

---

I'm sure it has nothing to do with him posting the same couple of pictures, that added nothing, in every thread that devolves into this same old crap.

---

Yet Milli is allowed to reign free and attack other posters with almost every single post. What is wrong with this picture?

---

Pretty sure he's been sent to timeout as well, more than once.

80sBEAR said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If true, this is complete and utter crap.

---

'Tis true. This underscores how much we miss the BOR-free zone that was baylorfans.com.

Now we know how folks feel living under the Bolsheviks. Whatever happened to diversity? Murff must have some dirty pictures or some delinquent notes on somebody.

---

Such drama queens.

How dare the mods try to make a football forum about football and not butthurt t-shirt trolls ranting about the same bygone crap for two years.

---

So are you an investor or a BOR member or both?

---

It's hilarious you think the BOR gives two shakes what a ranting anonymous poster says to dozens on a free message board.

Makes you really feel powerful to think you have an influence doesn't it.

---

Well it apparently bothers someone named here to the point that he pressures the moderators to ban such an insignificant poster. This person evidently thinks someone is paying attention to this little old board

---

I must admit that I have not followed what they banned poster has posted very closely. What did he say that would rile people up?

---

He posted actual pictures of the Regents which I am sure enraged them to no end. Those people don't want the Baylor Alumni to know who they are or what they look like. They want to remain in the shadows and don't want to be held accountable for anything. That is the truth. Plain and simple. Perhaps one of the moderators will want to put in their two cents, for what it is worth. This is the free board, and very simply, paid opinions trump free ones. That is the way the world works.

---

I'm sure it has nothing to do with him posting the same couple of pictures, that added nothing, in every thread that devolves into this same old crap.

---

Yet Milli is allowed to reign free and attack other posters with almost every single post. What is wrong with this picture?

---

What's wrong with this picture is that you don't have that poster on ignore.

ColomboLQ said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If true, this is complete and utter crap.

---

'Tis true. This underscores how much we miss the BOR-free zone that was baylorfans.com.

Now we know how folks feel living under the Bolsheviks. Whatever happened to diversity? Murff must have some dirty pictures or some delinquent notes on somebody.

---

Such drama queens.

How dare the mods try to make a football forum about football and not butthurt t-shirt trolls ranting about the same bygone crap for two years.

---

So are you an investor or a BOR member or both?

---

It's hilarious you think the BOR gives two shakes what a ranting anonymous poster says to dozens on a free message board.

Makes you really feel powerful to think you have an influence doesn't it.

---

Well it apparently bothers someone named here to the point that he pressures the moderators to ban such an insignificant poster. This person evidently thinks someone is paying attention to this little old board

---

I must admit that I have not followed what they banned poster has posted very closely. What did he say that would rile people up?

---

He posted actual pictures of the Regents which I am sure enraged them to no end. Those people don't want the Baylor Alumni to know who they are or what they look like. They want to remain in the shadows and don't want to be held accountable for anything. That is the truth. Plain and simple. Perhaps one of the moderators will want to put in their two cents, for what it is worth. This is the free board, and very simply, paid opinions trump free ones. That is the way the world works.

---

I'm sure it has nothing to do with him posting the same couple of pictures, that added nothing, in every thread that devolves into this same old crap.

---

Yet Milli is allowed to reign free and attack other posters with almost every single post. What is wrong with this picture?

---

Pretty sure he's been sent to timeout as well, more than once.

---

What good is a timeout when he is allowed to have alternate handles on here or is allowed back with his regular name a day later just so he can continue to do the same attacks and trolling over and over again?

---

So what are his alternate handles?

WatersSharpton2020 said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Bill Blazejowski said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

bearlyafarmer said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If certain regents and Baylor administrators are behind this ban, and I also suspect they are, it's because they feel disrespected. The truth is that they are, because thousands of Baylor alums and other stakeholders continue to see ourselves disrespected, dismissed and ignored by Baylor leadership. Respect is not a result of an office or position. Respect happens on the basis of the observed outworking of integrity and other high character traits. When everyone in the Baylor family (even the deniers) know that power and money (not character) are the basis for regency, a high degree of respect simply cannot be expected.

---

Very well said, Sir. It would have been refreshing had at least ONE of them defended Baylor or had the decency to resign. Just one.

---

Sorry for the weird format but this was the only link I could find. However, it does appear to be an infamous regent defending BU. It doesn't really fit with the established narrative on this board though so probably best not to click the link.

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-dallas-morning-news/20170310/281861528304627

---

I went ahead and clicked on your link. So you really think that letter from Ron Murff was a defense of Baylor? I did not read it that way. It appeared to me that he was attacking the Dallas Morning News and their editorial staff and criticizing them for being "slanted" against Baylor. Where does he say a single positive thing about the 99 percent of Baylor students, both women and men, that are good, honest, and moral people ? He was defending himself and the BOR, not Baylor. Perhaps others here that read it read something else into it.

That was a good try, but please forgive me for not getting the warm and fuzzies about Baylor from Mr. Murff's letter. I thought Mr. Murff was much more candid with the Wall Street Journal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

---

I am certainly no football fan and think it is a waste of resources, but after reading that Wall Street Journal article, it sure looks like the Regents made this scandal all about football. I had not seen that article.

---

"It was all about football," Mr. Murff said. "My response was that we felt like our fiduciary duty was to uphold the mission of the university. That was the primary objective. It was not just to win football games."

-- Ya think???

Why would anyone need multiple handles when this one alone is omnipotent torment to you?

If Murff were so concerned about his fiduciary duty, he would hold hearings and get to the events that cost Baylor millions in fees when a rogue regent ran loose on campus firing employees at will.

Without knowledge of the Board of Regents.

That's why they kept him around for that unprecedented fourth term....he was a loose cannon needing to be controlled and he needed the liability coverage for the pending lawsuits. No worries though since he quietly left the BOFR last summer.

Richard owes the board and Baylor university an apology.

He spent nearly eight years and ignored the red flags that were all over the football program.

We never got to hear his speech during his final term. Our board is so against transparency they don't want anyone finding out what he sad as he left his successors with the **** pile he left.

Jett.Rinky.Dink said:

---

Richard owes the board and Baylor university an apology.

---

And the other 90%, alumni, faculty, students, and stakeholders.

Stranger said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If true, this is complete and utter crap.

---

'Tis true. This underscores how much we miss the BOR-free zone that was baylorfans.com.

Now we know how folks feel living under the Bolsheviks. Whatever happened to diversity? Murff must have some dirty pictures or some delinquent notes on somebody.

---

Diversity? TLR's post were as trite and one-note as it gets. Perhaps with a little more diversity, he'd still be here.

bear2be2 said:

---

Stranger said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If true, this is complete and utter crap.

---

'Tis true. This underscores how much we miss the BOR-free zone that was baylorfans.com.

Now we know how folks feel living under the Bolsheviks. Whatever happened to diversity? Murff must have some dirty pictures or some delinquent notes on somebody.

---

Diversity? TLR's post were as trite and one-note as it gets. Perhaps with a little more diversity, he'd still be here.

---

It was easy enough for me to ignore him, but apparently not for some others.

I would like to know which boosters were in the middle of this with Willis. See who jammed up things because they wanted to be football royalty among the common fans at a school that had a chance to win a major bowl.

Art had enablers that helped screw this up. Every school has their alumni that want to be acknowledged by the coaches to feel important.
Baylor was doomed in my opinion. Art, Shill, Ian, Toddles, Starr, certain regents, boosters wanting their crown, other coaches and of course some players had a hand in it but that doesn't matter because those players are gone and won't be remembered going forward outside the bubble.
We had a desperate win now at all costs coach, a weak athletic director and department, sorry compliance, Conference Savior Ken as clueless president, hungry boosters, and a poorly managed board with more than a few agendas to take us down.
Did I miss anyone?

Rev.Wiles doesn't count. He just reminded us that there were Baptists in charge in some capacity.

DioNoZeus said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Friscobear said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Stranger said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If true, this is complete and utter crap.

---

'Tis true. This underscores how much we miss the BOR-free zone that was baylorfans.com.

Now we know how folks feel living under the Bolsheviks. Whatever happened to diversity? Murff must have some dirty pictures or some delinquent notes on somebody.

---

Such drama queens.

How dare the mods try to make a football forum about football and not butthurt t-shirt trolls ranting about the same bygone crap for two years.

---

So are you an investor or a BOR member or both?

---

It's hilarious you think the BOR gives two shakes what a ranting anonymous poster says to dozens on a free message board.

Makes you really feel powerful to think you have an influence doesn't it.

---

Well it apparently bothers someone named here to the point that he pressures the moderators to ban such an insignificant poster. This person evidently thinks someone is paying attention to this little old board

---

I must admit that I have not followed what they banned poster has posted very closely. What did he say that would rile people up?

---

He posted actual pictures of the Regents which I am sure enraged them to no end. Those people don't want the Baylor Alumni to know who they are or what they look like. They want to remain in the shadows and don't want to be held accountable for anything. That is the truth. Plain and simple. Perhaps one of the moderators will want to put in their two cents, for what it is worth. This is the free board, and very simply, paid opinions trump free ones. That is the way the world works.

---

I'm sure it has nothing to do with him posting the same couple of pictures, that added nothing, in every thread that devolves into this same old crap.

---

Yet Milli is allowed to reign free and attack other posters with almost every single post. What is wrong with this picture?

---

Pretty sure he's been sent to timeout as well, more than once.

---

What good is a timeout when he is allowed to have alternate handles on here or is allowed back with his regular name a day later just so he can continue to do the same attacks and trolling over and over again?

---

So what are his alternate handles?

---

I don't know what they are. I'm just repeating what a mod (3ptSpecialist) told another poster as an explanation to why they couldn't ban Milli permanently. Which in my opinion is a very weak explanation, but that's for another day.

WatersSharpton2020 said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Bill Blazejowski said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

bearlyafarmer said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

Tommy Lou Ramsower has been banned. Apparently the Regents did not like the pictures he was posting. Such courageous leadership we have. We should all be so proud.

---

If certain regents and Baylor administrators are behind this ban, and I also suspect they are, it's because they feel disrespected. The truth is that they are, because thousands of Baylor alums and other stakeholders continue to see ourselves disrespected, dismissed and ignored by Baylor leadership. Respect is not a result of an office or position. Respect happens on the basis of the observed outworking of integrity and other high character traits. When everyone in the Baylor family (even the deniers) know that power and money (not character) are the basis for regency, a high degree of respect simply cannot be expected.

---

Very well said, Sir. It would have been refreshing had at least ONE of them defended Baylor or had the decency to resign. Just one.

---

Sorry for the weird format but this was the only link I could find. However, it does appear to be an infamous regent defending BU. It doesn't really fit with the established narrative on this board though so probably best not to click the link.

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-dallas-morning-news/20170310/281861528304627

---

I went ahead and clicked on your link. So you really think that letter from Ron Murff was a defense of Baylor? I did not read it that way. It appeared to me that he was attacking the Dallas Morning News and their editorial staff and criticizing them for being "slanted" against Baylor. Where does he say a single positive thing about the 99 percent of Baylor students, both women and men, that are good, honest, and moral people ? He was defending himself and the BOR, not Baylor. Perhaps others here that read it read something else into it.

That was a good try, but please forgive me for not getting the warm and fuzzies about Baylor from Mr. Murff's letter. I thought Mr. Murff was much more candid with the Wall Street Journal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-details-horrifying-alleged-sexual-assaults-by-football-players-1477681988

---

I am certainly no football fan and think it is a waste of resources, but after reading that Wall Street Journal article, it sure looks like the Regents made this scandal all about football. I had not seen that article.

---

You hadn't seen that article? Where have you been for the last 2 years? Sheesh.

A few things of note:

1) I think the WSJ interview was a bad idea, but I certainly understand it. The pressure to say something was huge with ESPN doing hourly updates on the situation, the DMN running a "countdown until full disclosure" and the plaintiff's lawyers filing a new suit virtually every day (and the press taking everything said in the lawsuits claims as absolutely true). The PR response from BU and the regents was ill-conceived. They did not understand the forces at play at all and misjudged at almost every turn.

2) The DMN was the most dishonest party in this entire sad situation (with the possible exception of ESPN). Sharon Grigsby told the ed board over there that her good Baylor ties would get her access to the right information. But her first conversations with regents and administrators was SO high-handed and over-the top, it became clear that she was going to go for the "sensationalist" version without even attempting to look at the credibility of some of the accusers. As a result, she quickly found out that no one would talk to her. She was losing cred with the ed board. THEN, because of the problems with the DMN, a few Regents gave an exclusive interview to the WSJ. It was a journalistic slap in the face for Sharon and the DMN to get scooped like that. The DMN responded with a total scorched earth approach resulting in some of the most irresponsible reporting I've ever seen out of that publication. No nuance of any kind. Everyone associated with Baylor was a liar and a rape enabler. Every one that accused Baylor of anything (even scumbag plaintiffs lawyers with obvious $ interests in sensationalizing) was a saint and told only the truth. The national media began to repeat all of these stories in the now familiar way that the current lazy version of "journalism" does - "It is being reported that...[INSERT ANY WILD ACCUSATION BY ANOTHER NEWS ORGANIZATION]."

I thought they had an opportunity to place the story with a right leaning publication with credibility worldwide. They accomplished that goal and Art's pr war lost 107-21 after Art kicked off early.
Liberal leaning ESPN or some other publications would cause cries about bias against Baylor because the school is affiliated with Baptists (we all know some Baptists who think they are persecuted) and hating family Disney hates family values according to some Baylor alumni.
The Dallas Morning News and Texas Monthly are Longhorn tied and dropping the story with those media outlets would add to the conspiracy created by the Scapegoat group.

The scapegoat group cannot sell a giant media conspiracy.

Baylor's pr team whipped some ass. Only Bu's information is used for Baylor stories. Unless you are in Texas or Baptist, nothing bad is placed on Baylor. Art Briles gets to carry that burden up the hill.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

A few things of note:

1) I think the WSJ interview was a bad idea, but I certainly understand it. The pressure to say something was huge with ESPN doing hourly updates on the situation, the DMN running a "countdown until full disclosure" and the plaintiff's lawyers filing a new suit virtually every day (and the press taking everything said in the lawsuits claims as absolutely true). The PR response from BU and the regents was ill-conceived. They did not understand the forces at play at all and misjudged at almost every turn.

2) The DMN was the most dishonest party in this entire sad situation (with the possible exception of ESPN). Sharon Grigsby told the ed board over there that her good Baylor ties would get her access to the right information. But her first conversations with regents and administrators was SO high-handed and over-the top, it became clear that she was going to go for the "sensationalist" version without even attempting to look at the credibility of some of the accusers. As a result, she quickly found out that no one would talk to her. She was losing cred with the ed board. THEN, because of the problems with the DMN, a few Regents gave an exclusive interview to the WSJ. It was a journalistic slap in the face for Sharon and the DMN to get scooped like that. The DMN responded with a total scorched earth approach resulting in some of the most irresponsible reporting I've ever seen out of that publication. No nuance of any kind. Everyone associated with Baylor was a liar and a rape enabler. Every one that accused Baylor of anything (even scumbag plaintiffs lawyers with obvious $ interests in sensationalizing) was a saint and told only the truth. The national media began to repeat all of these stories in the now familiar way that the current lazy version of "journalism" does - "It is being reported that...[INSERT ANY WILD ACCUSATION BY ANOTHER NEWS ORGANIZATIOoN]."

---

Who are you, what have you done with OsoCoreyell, and why are you using his computer?

OsoCoreyell said:

---

A few things of note:

1) I think the WSJ interview was a bad idea, but I certainly understand it. The pressure to say something was huge with ESPN doing hourly updates on the situation, the DMN running a "countdown until full disclosure" and the plaintiff's lawyers filing a new suit virtually every day (and the press taking everything said in the lawsuits claims as absolutely true). The PR response from BU and the regents was ill-conceived. They did not understand the forces at play at all and misjudged at almost every turn.

2) The DMN was the most dishonest party in this entire sad situation (with the possible exception of ESPN). Sharon Grigsby told the ed board over there that her good Baylor ties would get her access to the right information. But her first conversations with regents and administrators was SO high-handed and over-the top, it became clear that she was going to go for the "sensationalist" version without even attempting to look at the credibility of some of the accusers. As a result, she quickly found out that no one would talk to her. She was losing cred with the ed board. THEN, because of the problems with the DMN, a few Regents gave an exclusive interview to the WSJ. It was a journalistic slap in the face for Sharon and the DMN to get scooped like that. The DMN responded with a total scorched earth approach resulting in some of the most irresponsible reporting I've ever seen out of that publication. No nuance of any kind. Everyone associated with Baylor was a liar and a rape enabler. Every one that accused Baylor of anything (even scumbag plaintiffs lawyers with obvious $ interests in sensationalizing) was a saint and told only the truth. The national media began to repeat all of these stories in the now familiar way that the current lazy version of "journalism" does - "It is being reported that...[INSERT ANY WILD ACCUSATION BY ANOTHER NEWS ORGANIZATION]."

---

A few things to consider per your points:
1- Yes, the WSJ interview of 10/28/16 was a bad idea. It was amateur hour for our leadership and nobody on a national level really cared about what was going on in Waco despite nationwide coverage on ESPN and the upcoming 60 Minutes piece on 11/1/16. However, Bunting was the new PR firm hired (there's a link there to a current regent who was a client with his own recovering reputation from sexual harassment issues-also Google Bunting Occidental to see their method of PR operation for the SA problems at that school) because our in-house folks and a local firm weren't up to the task and they found a Baylor grad who works at the WSJ to author that interview for a response on a national scale due to the ESPN and upcoming 60 Minutes coverage.

2- The DMN was NOT the most dishonest party of the "entire sad situation"; maybe from your point of view for not showing the BOR in a positive light. But, yes, I agree there was some dishonest reporting, if you call it reporting, from that outlet. There's much blame to go around: Starr, RR, Briles, Ian, Shill, our BOR, ESPN sensationalism, etc. Yes, Grigsby showed that she didn't have the goods and got scooped, but Bunting wanted a national outlet to highlight only football program SA problems despite the DMN clamoring for action and knowing that the 60 Minutes piece would hit SA problems across the entire university. The WSJ interview was printed on 10/28/16 while the DMN interview with a different regent group wasn't printed until 11/3/16.

80sBEAR said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

A few things of note:

1) I think the WSJ interview was a bad idea, but I certainly understand it. The pressure to say something was huge with ESPN doing hourly updates on the situation, the DMN running a "countdown until full disclosure" and the plaintiff's lawyers filing a new suit virtually every day (and the press taking everything said in the lawsuits claims as absolutely true). The PR response from BU and the regents was ill-conceived. They did not understand the forces at play at all and misjudged at almost every turn.

2) The DMN was the most dishonest party in this entire sad situation (with the possible exception of ESPN). Sharon Grigsby told the ed board over there that her good Baylor ties would get her access to the right information. But her first conversations with regents and administrators was SO high-handed and over-the top, it became clear that she was going to go for the "sensationalist" version without even attempting to look at the credibility of some of the accusers. As a result, she quickly found out that no one would talk to her. She was losing cred with the ed board. THEN, because of the problems with the DMN, a few Regents gave an exclusive interview to the WSJ. It was a journalistic slap in the face for Sharon and the DMN to get scooped like that. The DMN responded with a total scorched earth approach resulting in some of the most irresponsible reporting I've ever seen out of that publication. No nuance of any kind. Everyone associated with Baylor was a liar and a rape enabler. Every one that accused Baylor of anything (even scumbag plaintiffs lawyers with obvious $ interests in sensationalizing) was a saint and told only the truth. The national media began to repeat all of these stories in the now familiar way that the current lazy version of "journalism" does - "It is being reported that...[INSERT ANY WILD ACCUSATION BY ANOTHER NEWS ORGANIZATIOoN]."

---

Who are you, what have you done with OsoCoreyell, and why are you using his computer?

---

Same guy I've ever been, bro Ward. As I've said 1MM times, there is no one that covered themselves in glory in this situation. Even though I call you a dumbass (and mean it sometimes), I still like you. Hell, I'm a dumbass from way-back!

OsoCoreyell said:

---

80sBEAR said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

A few things of note:

1) I think the WSJ interview was a bad idea, but I certainly understand it. The pressure to say something was huge with ESPN doing hourly updates on the situation, the DMN running a "countdown until full disclosure" and the plaintiff's lawyers filing a new suit virtually every day (and the press taking everything said in the lawsuits claims as absolutely true). The PR response from BU and the regents was ill-conceived. They did not understand the forces at play at all and misjudged at almost every turn.

2) The DMN was the most dishonest party in this entire sad situation (with the possible exception of ESPN). Sharon Grigsby told the ed board over there that her good Baylor ties would get her access to the right information. But her first conversations with regents and administrators was SO high-handed and over-the top, it became clear that she was going to go for the "sensationalist" version without even attempting to look at the credibility of some of the accusers. As a result, she quickly found out that no one would talk to her. She was losing cred with the ed board. THEN, because of the problems with the DMN, a few Regents gave an exclusive interview to the WSJ. It was a journalistic slap in the face for Sharon and the DMN to get scooped like that. The DMN responded with a total scorched earth approach resulting in some of the most irresponsible reporting I've ever seen out of that publication. No nuance of any kind. Everyone associated with Baylor was a liar and a rape enabler. Every one that accused Baylor of anything (even scumbag plaintiffs lawyers with obvious $ interests in sensationalizing) was a saint and told only the truth. The national media began to repeat all of these stories in the now familiar way that the current lazy version of "journalism" does - "It is being reported that...[INSERT ANY WILD ACCUSATION BY ANOTHER NEWS ORGANIZATIOoN]."

---

Who are you, what have you done with OsoCoreyell, and why are you using his computer?

---

Same guy I've ever been, bro Ward. As I've said 1MM times, there is no one that covered themselves in glory in this situation. Even though I call you a dumbass (and mean it sometimes), I still like you. Hell, I'm a dumbass from way-back!

---

Amen Brother. Briles, McCaw, and Starr all failed. Just want to make sure all of those that failed are held accountable. The BOR needs to go for any healing to begin.